Neurophysiological outcomes that sustained clinically significant improvements over 3 years of physiologic ECAP-controlled closed-loop spinal cord stimulation for the treatment of chronic pain.

INTRODUCTION: A novel, spinal cord stimulation (SCS) system with a physiologic closed-loop (CL) feedback mechanism controlled by evoked compound action potentials (ECAPs) enables the optimization of physiologic neural dose and the accuracy of the stimulation, not possible with any other commercially available SCS systems. The report of objective spinal cord measurements is essential to increase the transparency and reproducibility of SCS therapy. Here, we report a cohort of the EVOKE double-blind randomized controlled trial treated with CL-SCS for 36 months to evaluate the ECAP dose and accuracy that sustained the durability of clinical improvements. METHODS: 41 patients randomized to CL-SCS remained in their treatment allocation and were followed up through 36 months. Objective neurophysiological data, including measures of spinal cord activation, were analyzed. Pain relief was assessed by determining the proportion of patients with ≥50% and ≥80% reduction in overall back and leg pain. RESULTS: The performance of the feedback loop resulted in high-dose accuracy by keeping the elicited ECAP within 4µV of the target ECAP set on the system across all timepoints. Percent time stimulating above the ECAP threshold was >98%, and the ECAP dose was ≥19.3µV. Most patients obtained ≥50% reduction (83%) and ≥80% reduction (59%) in overall back and leg pain with a sustained response observed in the rates between 3-month and 36-month follow-up (p=0.083 and p=0.405, respectively). CONCLUSION: The results suggest that a physiological adherence to supra-ECAP threshold therapy that generates pain inhibition provided by ECAP-controlled CL-SCS leads to durable improvements in pain intensity with no evidence of loss of therapeutic effect through 36-month follow-up.

ECAP-controlled closed-loop versus open-loop SCS for the treatment of chronic pain: 36-month results of the EVOKE blinded randomized clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: The evidence for spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been criticized for the absence of blinded, parallel randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and limited evaluations of the long-term effects of SCS in RCTs. The aim of this study was to determine whether evoked compound action potential (ECAP)-controlled, closed-loop SCS (CL-SCS) is associated with better outcomes when compared with fixed-output, open-loop SCS (OL-SCS) 36 months following implant. METHODS: The EVOKE study was a multicenter, participant-blinded, investigator-blinded, and outcome assessor-blinded, randomized, controlled, parallel-arm clinical trial that compared ECAP-controlled CL-SCS with fixed-output OL-SCS. Participants with chronic, intractable back and leg pain refractory to conservative therapy were enrolled between January 2017 and February 2018, with follow-up through 36 months. The primary outcome was a reduction of at least 50% in overall back and leg pain. Holistic treatment response, a composite outcome including pain intensity, physical and emotional functioning, sleep, and health-related quality of life, and objective neural activation was also assessed. RESULTS: At 36 months, more CL-SCS than OL-SCS participants reported ≥50% reduction (CL-SCS=77.6%, OL-SCS=49.3%; difference: 28.4%, 95% CI 12.8% to 43.9%, p<0.001) and ≥80% reduction (CL-SCS=49.3%, OL-SCS=31.3%; difference: 17.9, 95% CI 1.6% to 34.2%, p=0.032) in overall back and leg pain intensity. Clinically meaningful improvements from baseline were observed at 36 months in both CL-SCS and OL-SCS groups in all other patient-reported outcomes with greater levels of improvement with CL-SCS. A greater proportion of patients with CL-SCS were holistic treatment responders at 36-month follow-up (44.8% vs 28.4%), with a greater cumulative responder score for CL-SCS patients. Greater neural activation and accuracy were observed with CL-SCS. There were no differences between CL-SCS and OL-SCS groups in adverse events. No explants due to loss of efficacy were observed in the CL-SCS group. CONCLUSION: This long-term evaluation with objective measurement of SCS therapy demonstrated that ECAP-controlled CL-SCS resulted in sustained, durable pain relief and superior holistic treatment response through 36 months. Greater neural activation and increased accuracy of therapy delivery were observed with ECAP-controlled CL-SCS than OL-SCS. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02924129.

Durability of Clinical and Quality-of-Life Outcomes of Closed-Loop Spinal Cord Stimulation for Chronic Back and Leg Pain: A Secondary Analysis of the Evoke Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Chronic pain is debilitating and profoundly affects health-related quality of life. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a well-established therapy for chronic pain; however, SCS has been limited by the inability to directly measure the elicited neural response, precluding confirmation of neural activation and continuous therapy. A novel SCS system measures the evoked compound action potentials (ECAPs) to produce a real-time physiological closed-loop control system. Objective: To determine whether ECAP-controlled, closed-loop SCS is associated with better outcomes compared with fixed-output, open-loop SCS at 24 months following implant. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Evoke study was a double-blind, randomized, controlled, parallel arm clinical trial with 36 months of follow-up. Participants were enrolled from February 2017 to 2018, and the study was conducted at 13 US investigation sites. SCS candidates with chronic, intractable back and leg pain refractory to conservative therapy, who consented, were screened. Key eligibility criteria included overall, back, and leg pain visual analog scale score of 60 mm or more; Oswestry Disability Index score of 41 to 80; stable pain medications; and no previous SCS. Analysis took place from October 2020 to April 2021. Interventions: ECAP-controlled, closed-loop SCS was compared with fixed-output, open-loop SCS. Main Outcomes and Measures: Reported here are the 24-month outcomes of the trial, which include all randomized patients in the primary and safety analyses. The primary outcome was a reduction of 50% or more in overall back and leg pain assessed at 3 and 12 months (previously published). Results: Of 134 randomized patients, 65 (48.5%) were female and the mean (SD) age was 55.2 (10.6) years. At 24 months, significantly more closed-loop than open-loop patients were responders (≥50% reduction) in overall pain (53 of 67 [79.1%] in the closed-loop group; 36 of 67 [53.7%] in the open-loop group; difference, 25.4% [95% CI, 10.0%-40.8%]; P = .001). There was no difference in safety profiles between groups (difference in rate of study-related adverse events: 6.0 [95% CI, -7.8 to 19.7]). Improvements were also observed in health-related quality of life, physical and emotional functioning, and sleep, in parallel with opioid reduction or elimination. Objective neurophysiological measurements substantiated the clinical outcomes and provided evidence of activation of inhibitory pain mechanisms. Conclusions and Relevance: ECAP-controlled, closed-loop SCS, which elicited a more consistent neural response, was associated with sustained superior pain relief at 24 months, consistent with the 3- and 12-month outcomes.

Treatment of chronic axial back pain with 60-day percutaneous medial branch PNS: Primary end point results from a prospective, multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this prospective, multicenter study is to characterize responses to percutaneous medial branch peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) to determine if results from earlier, smaller single-center studies and reports were generalizable when performed at a larger number and wider variety of centers in patients recalcitrant to nonsurgical treatments. MATERIALS & METHODS: Participants with chronic axial low back pain (LBP) were implanted with percutaneous PNS leads targeting the lumbar medial branch nerves for up to 60 days, after which the leads were removed. Participants were followed long-term for 12 months after the 2-month PNS treatment. Data collection is complete for visits through end of treatment with PNS (primary end point) and 6 months after lead removal (8 months after start of treatment), with some participant follow-up visits thereafter in progress. RESULTS: Clinically and statistically significant reductions in pain intensity, disability, and pain interference were reported by a majority of participants. Seventy-three percent of participants were successes for the primary end point, reporting clinically significant (≥30%) reductions in back pain intensity after the 2-month percutaneous PNS treatment (n = 54/74). Whereas prospective follow-up is ongoing, among those who had already completed the long-term follow-up visits (n = 51), reductions in pain intensity, disability, and pain interference were sustained in a majority of participants through 14 months after the start of treatment. CONCLUSION: Given the minimally invasive, nondestructive nature of percutaneous PNS and the significant benefits experienced by participants who were recalcitrant to nonsurgical treatments, percutaneous PNS may provide a promising first-line neurostimulation treatment option for patients with chronic axial back pain.

Percutaneous Peripheral Nerve Stimulation of the Medial Branch Nerves for the Treatment of Chronic Axial Back Pain in Patients After Radiofrequency Ablation.

OBJECTIVE: Lumbar radiofrequency ablation is a commonly used intervention for chronic back pain. However, the pain typically returns, and though retreatment may be successful, the procedure involves destruction of the medial branch nerves, which denervates the multifidus. Repeated procedures typically have diminishing returns, which can lead to opioid use, surgery, or implantation of permanent neuromodulation systems. The objective of this report is to demonstrate the potential use of percutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) as a minimally invasive, nondestructive, motor-sparing alternative to repeat radiofrequency ablation and more invasive surgical procedures. DESIGN: Prospective, multicenter trial. METHODS: Individuals with a return of chronic axial pain after radiofrequency ablation underwent implantation of percutaneous PNS leads targeting the medial branch nerves. Stimulation was delivered for up to 60 days, after which the leads were removed. Participants were followed up to 5 months after the start of PNS. Outcomes included pain intensity, disability, and pain interference. RESULTS: Highly clinically significant (≥50%) reductions in average pain intensity were reported by a majority of participants (67%, n = 10/15) after 2 months with PNS, and a majority experienced clinically significant improvements in functional outcomes, as measured by disability (87%, n = 13/15) and pain interference (80%, n = 12/15). Five months after PNS, 93% (n = 14/15) reported clinically meaningful improvement in one or more outcome measures, and a majority experienced clinically meaningful improvements in all three outcomes (i.e., pain intensity, disability, and pain interference). CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous PNS has the potential to shift the pain management paradigm by providing an effective, nondestructive, motor-sparing neuromodulation treatment.

Paresthesia-Free Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation: An ACCURATE Study Sub-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: ACCURATE, a randomized controlled trial comparing dorsal root ganglion (DRG) stimulation to spinal cord stimulation, showed that DRG stimulation is a safe and effective therapy in individuals with lower extremity chronic pain due to complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) type I or II. Investigators noted that DRG stimulation programming could be adjusted to minimize, or eliminate, the feeling of paresthesia while maintaining adequate pain relief. The present study explores treatment outcomes for DRG subjects who were paresthesia-free vs. those who experienced the sensation of paresthesia, as well as the factors that predicted paresthesia-free analgesia. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of therapy outcomes was conducted for 61 subjects in the ACCURATE study who received a permanent DRG neurostimulator. Outcomes of subjects who were paresthesia-free were compared to those who experienced paresthesia-present therapy at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12-month follow-ups. Predictor variables for the presence or absence of paresthesias with DRG stimulation were also explored. RESULTS: The percentage of subjects with paresthesia-free pain relief increased from 16.4% at 1-month to 38.3% at 12-months. Paresthesia-free subjects generally had similar or better outcomes for pain severity, pain interference, quality of life, and mood state as subjects with paresthesia-present stimulation. Factors that increased the odds of a subject feeling paresthesia were higher stimulation amplitudes and frequencies, number of implanted leads, and younger age. CONCLUSIONS: Some DRG subjects achieved effective paresthesia-free analgesia in the ACCURATE trial. This supports the observation that paresthesia is not synonymous with pain relief or required for optimal analgesia with DRG stimulation.

Therapy Habituation at 12 Months: Spinal Cord Stimulation Versus Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation for Complex Regional Pain Syndrome Type I and II.

The ACCURATE randomized, controlled trial compared outcomes of dorsal root ganglion (DRG) stimulation versus tonic spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in 152 subjects with chronic lower extremity pain due to complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) type I or II. This ACCURATE substudy was designed to evaluate whether therapy habituation occurs with DRG stimulation as compared to SCS through 12-months. A modified intention-to-treat analysis was performed to assess percentage pain relief (PPR) and responder rates at follow-up visits (end-of-trial, 1, 3, 6, 9, 12-months postpermanent implant) for all subjects that completed trial stimulation (DRG:N = 73, SCS:N = 72). For both groups, mean PPR was significantly greater at end-of-trial (DRG = 82.2%, SCS =0 77.0%) than all other follow-ups. Following permanent DRG system implantation, none of the time points were significantly different from one another in PPR (range = 69.3-73.9%). For the SCS group, PPR at 9-months (58.3%) and 12-months (57.9%) was significantly less than at 1-month (66.9%). The responder rate also decreased for the SCS group from 1-month (68.1%) to 12-months (61.1%). After stratifying by diagnosis, it was found that only the CRPS-I population had diminishing pain relief with SCS. DRG stimulation resulted in more stable pain relief through 12-months, while tonic SCS demonstrated therapy habituation at 9- and 12-months. Trial Registration: The ACCURATE study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with Identifier NCT01923285. PERSPECTIVE: This article reports on an ACCURATE substudy, which found that long-term therapy habituation occurred at 12-months with SCS, but not DRG stimulation, in patients with CRPS. The underlying mechanisms of action for these results remain unclear, although several lines of inquiry are proposed.

Long-term safety and efficacy of closed-loop spinal cord stimulation to treat chronic back and leg pain (Evoke): a double-blind, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Spinal cord stimulation has been an established treatment for chronic back and leg pain for more than 50 years; however, outcomes are variable and unpredictable, and objective evidence of the mechanism of action is needed. A novel spinal cord stimulation system provides the first in vivo, real-time, continuous objective measure of spinal cord activation in response to therapy via recorded evoked compound action potentials (ECAPs) in patients during daily use. These ECAPs are also used to optimise programming and deliver closed-loop spinal cord stimulation by adjusting the stimulation current to maintain activation within patients' therapeutic window. We aimed to examine pain relief and the extent of spinal cord activation with ECAP-controlled closed-loop versus fixed-output, open-loop spinal cord stimulation for the treatment of chronic back and leg pain. METHODS: This multicentre, double-blind, parallel-arm, randomised controlled trial was done at 13 specialist clinics, academic centres, and hospitals in the USA. Patients with chronic, intractable pain of the back and legs (Visual Analog Scale [VAS] pain score ≥60 mm; Oswestry Disability Index [ODI] score 41-80) who were refractory to conservative therapy, on stable pain medications, had no previous experience with spinal cord stimulation, and were appropriate candidates for a spinal cord stimulation trial were screened. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive ECAP-controlled closed-loop spinal cord stimulation (investigational group) or fixed-output, open-loop spinal cord stimulation (control group). The randomisation sequence was computer generated with permuted blocks of size 4 and 6 and stratified by site. Patients, investigators, and site staff were masked to the treatment assignment. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with a reduction of 50% or more in overall back and leg pain with no increase in pain medications. Non-inferiority (δ=10%) followed by superiority were tested in the intention-to-treat population at 3 months (primary analysis) and 12 months (additional prespecified analysis) after the permanent implant. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02924129, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Feb 21, 2017, and Feb 20, 2018, 134 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned (67 to each treatment group). The intention-to-treat analysis comprised 125 patients at 3 months (62 in the closed-loop group and 63 in the open-loop group) and 118 patients at 12 months (59 in the closed-loop group and 59 in the open-loop group). The primary outcome was achieved in a greater proportion of patients in the closed-loop group than in the open-loop group at 3 months (51 [82·3%] of 62 patients vs 38 [60·3%] of 63 patients; difference 21·9%, 95% CI 6·6-37·3; p=0·0052) and at 12 months (49 [83·1%] of 59 patients vs 36 [61·0%] of 59 patients; difference 22·0%, 6·3-37·7; p=0·0060). We observed no differences in safety profiles between the two groups. The most frequently reported study-related adverse events in both groups were lead migration (nine [7%] patients), implantable pulse generator pocket pain (five [4%]), and muscle spasm or cramp (three [2%]). INTERPRETATION: ECAP-controlled closed-loop stimulation provided significantly greater and more clinically meaningful pain relief up to 12 months than open-loop spinal cord stimulation. Greater spinal cord activation seen in the closed-loop group suggests a mechanistic explanation for the superior results, which aligns with the putative mechanism of action for spinal cord stimulation and warrants further investigation. FUNDING: Saluda Medical.

Comparison of Paresthesia Coverage of Patient's Pain: Dorsal Root Ganglion vs. Spinal Cord Stimulation. An ACCURATE Study Sub-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This was a sub-analysis of the ACCURATE clinical trial that evaluated the accuracy and necessity of targeting paresthesia coverage of painful areas with dorsal root ganglion (DRG) stimulation vs. tonic spinal cord stimulation (SCS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: On diagrams of the torso and lower limbs, subjects marked where they felt pain at baseline and paresthesias at three months postimplant. Seventy-five subjects (41 DRG and 34 SCS) with diagrams of sufficient quality were scanned, digitized, and included in this analysis. Subject completed diagrams were digitized and superimposed with a grid of 1398 squares. Quantification of the percentage of bodily areas affected by pain and stimulation induced paresthesias was performed. RESULTS: The percent of painful areas covered by paresthesia was significantly lower for DRG subjects than for SCS subjects (13% vs. 28% of the painful regions, p < 0.05), possibly because significantly more DRG subjects felt no paresthesia during stimulation when compared to SCS subjects (13/41 DRG vs. 3/34 SCS) (p < 0.05). The amount of paresthesia produced outside the painful areas (unrequired paresthesia) was significantly lower in DRG subjects than that of SCS subjects. On average, the percent of unrequired paresthesia was only 20% of the subjects' total painful body surface area in the DRG group compared to 210% in the SCS group (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this ACCURATE study sub-analysis show that DRG stimulation produces paresthesias, on average, that are less frequent, less intense, with a smaller footprint on the body and less dependent on positional changes.

Long-term quality of life improvement for chronic intractable back and leg pain patients using spinal cord stimulation: 12-month results from the SENZA-RCT.

PURPOSE: Chronic axial low-back pain is a debilitating disorder that impacts all aspects of an afflicted individual's life. Effective, durable treatments have historically been elusive. Interventional therapies, such as spinal cord stimulation (SCS), have shown limited efficacy at best. Recently, a novel treatment, 10 kHz SCS, has demonstrated superior pain relief compared with traditional SCS in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). In this manuscript, we report on the long-term improvements in quality of life (QoL) outcomes for subjects enrolled in this study. METHODS: A prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial (SENZA-RCT) was conducted. Patients with both chronic back and leg pain were enrolled and randomized (1:1) into 10 kHz SCS or traditional SCS treatment groups. A total of 171 subjects received a permanent SCS device implant. QoL and functionality measures were collected up to 12 months. The device remote control utilization, which is an indication of patient interaction with the device for adjustments, was collected at 24-month post-implantation. RESULTS: At 12 months, a higher proportion of 10 kHz SCS subjects had marked improvement of their disability (Oswestry Disability Index) to a "moderate" or "minimal" impact on their daily function versus the control group. The subjects also reported better improvement in the Global Assessment of Functioning, Clinician Global Impression of Change, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, and short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire, compared to traditional SCS subjects. The 10 kHz SCS subjects also reported far higher rates of both driving and sleeping with their device turned on, as well as reduced reliance on their programmers to adjust therapy settings. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to superior pain relief, 10 kHz SCS provides long-term improvements in quality of life and functionality for subjects with chronic low-back and leg pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01609972).

Paresthesia-Independence: An Assessment of Technical Factors Related to 10 kHz Paresthesia-Free Spinal Cord Stimulation.

BACKGROUND: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been successfully used to treat chronic intractable pain for over 40 years. Successful clinical application of SCS is presumed to be generally dependent on maximizing paresthesia-pain overlap; critical to achieving this is positioning of the stimulation field at the physiologic midline. Recently, the necessity of paresthesia for achieving effective relief in SCS has been challenged by the introduction of 10 kHz paresthesia-free stimulation. In a large, prospective, randomized controlled pivotal trial, HF10 therapy was demonstrated to be statistically and clinically superior to paresthesia-based SCS in the treatment of severe chronic low back and leg pain. HF10 therapy, unlike traditional paresthesia-based SCS, requires no paresthesia to be experienced by the patient, nor does it require paresthesia mapping at any point during lead implant or post-operative programming. OBJECTIVES: To determine if pain relief was related to technical factors of paresthesia, we measured and analyzed the paresthesia responses of patients successfully using HF10 therapy. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, multicenter, non-randomized, non-controlled interventional study. SETTING: Outpatient pain clinic at 10 centers across the US and Italy. METHODS: Patients with both back and leg pain already implanted with an HF10 therapy device for up to 24 months were included in this multicenter study. Patients provided pain scores prior to and after using HF10 therapy. Each patient's most efficacious HF10 therapy stimulation program was temporarily modified to a low frequency (LF; 60 Hz), wide pulse width (~470 mus), paresthesia-generating program. On a human body diagram, patients drew the locations of their chronic intractable pain and, with the modified program activated, all regions where they experienced LF paresthesia. Paresthesia and pain drawings were then analyzed to estimate the correlation of pain relief outcomes to overlap of pain by paresthesia, and the mediolateral distribution of paresthesia (as a surrogate of physiologic midline lead positioning). RESULTS: A total of 61 patients participated across 11 centers. Twenty-eight men and 33 women with a mean age of 56 ± 12 years of age participated in the study. The average duration of implantable pulse generator (IPG) implant was 19 ± 9 months. The average predominant pain score, as measured on a 0 - 10 visual analog scale (VAS), prior to HF10 therapy was 7.8 ± 1.3 and at time of testing was 2.5 ± 2.1, yielding an average pain relief of 70 ± 24%. For all patients, the mean paresthesia coverage of pain was 21 ± 28%, with 43% of patients having zero paresthesia coverage of pain. Analysis revealed no correlation between percentage of LF paresthesia overlap of predominant pain and HF10 therapy efficacy (P = 0.56). Exact mediolateral positioning of the stimulation electrodes was not found to be a statistically significant predictor of pain relief outcomes. LIMITATIONS: Non-randomized/non-controlled study design; short-term evaluation; certain technical factors not investigated. CONCLUSION: Both paresthesia concordance with pain and precise midline positioning of the stimulation contacts appear to be inconsequential technical factors for successful HF10 therapy application. These results suggest that HF10 therapy is not only paresthesia-free, but may be paresthesia-independent.

Dorsal root ganglion stimulation yielded higher treatment success rate for complex regional pain syndrome and causalgia at 3 and 12 months: a randomized comparative trial.

Animal and human studies indicate that electrical stimulation of dorsal root ganglion (DRG) neurons may modulate neuropathic pain signals. ACCURATE, a pivotal, prospective, multicenter, randomized comparative effectiveness trial, was conducted in 152 subjects diagnosed with complex regional pain syndrome or causalgia in the lower extremities. Subjects received neurostimulation of the DRG or dorsal column (spinal cord stimulation, SCS). The primary end point was a composite of safety and efficacy at 3 months, and subjects were assessed through 12 months for long-term outcomes and adverse events. The predefined primary composite end point of treatment success was met for subjects with a permanent implant who reported 50% or greater decrease in visual analog scale score from preimplant baseline and who did not report any stimulation-related neurological deficits. No subjects reported stimulation-related neurological deficits. The percentage of subjects receiving ≥50% pain relief and treatment success was greater in the DRG arm (81.2%) than in the SCS arm (55.7%, P < 0.001) at 3 months. Device-related and serious adverse events were not different between the 2 groups. Dorsal root ganglion stimulation also demonstrated greater improvements in quality of life and psychological disposition. Finally, subjects using DRG stimulation reported less postural variation in paresthesia (P < 0.001) and reduced extraneous stimulation in nonpainful areas (P = 0.014), indicating DRG stimulation provided more targeted therapy to painful parts of the lower extremities. As the largest prospective, randomized comparative effectiveness trial to date, the results show that DRG stimulation provided a higher rate of treatment success with less postural variation in paresthesia intensity compared to SCS.

Comparison of 10-kHz High-Frequency and Traditional Low-Frequency Spinal Cord Stimulation for the Treatment of Chronic Back and Leg Pain: 24-Month Results From a Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled Pivotal Trial.

BACKGROUND: Pain relief with spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has focused historically on paresthesias overlapping chronically painful areas. A higher level evidence supports the use of SCS in treating leg pain than supports back pain, as it is difficult to achieve adequate paresthesia coverage, and then pain relief, in the low back region. In comparison, 10-kHz high-frequency (HF10 therapy) SCS therapy does not rely on intraoperative paresthesia mapping and remains paresthesia-free during therapy. OBJECTIVE: To compare long-term results of HF10 therapy and traditional low-frequency SCS. METHODS: A pragmatic randomized, controlled, pivotal trial with 24-month follow-up was conducted across 11 comprehensive pain treatment centers. Subjects had Visual Analog Scale scores of ≥5.0/10.0 cm for both back and leg pain, and were assigned randomly (1:1) to receive HF10 therapy or low-frequency SCS. The primary end point was a responder rate, defined as ≥50% back pain reduction from baseline at 3 months with a secondary end point at 12 months (previously reported). In this article, 24-month secondary results are presented. Non-inferiority was first assessed, and if demonstrated the results were tested for superiority. RESULTS: In the study, 198 subjects were randomized (101 HF10 therapy, 97 traditional SCS). One hundred seventy-one subjects (90 HF10 therapy, 81 traditional SCS) successfully completed a short-term trial and were implanted. Subjects averaged 54.9 ± 12.9 years old, 13.6 ± 11.3 years since diagnosis, 86.6% had back surgery, 88.3% were taking opioid analgesics. At 3 months, 84.5% of implanted HF10 therapy subjects were responders for back pain and 83.1% for leg pain, and 43.8% of traditional SCS subjects were responders for back pain and 55.5% for leg pain (P < .001 for both back and leg pain comparisons, non-inferiority and superiority). At 24 months, more subjects were responders to HF10 therapy than traditional SCS (back pain: 76.5% vs 49.3%; 27.2% difference, 95% CI, 10.1%-41.8%; P < .001 for non-inferiority and superiority; leg pain: 72.9% vs 49.3%; 23.6% difference, 95% CI, 5.9%-38.6%; P < .001 for non-inferiority and P = .003 for superiority). Also at 24 months, back pain decreased to a greater degree with HF10 therapy (66.9% ± 31.8%) than traditional SCS (41.1% ± 36.8%, P < .001 for non-inferiority and superiority). Leg pain also decreased to a greater degree with HF10 therapy (65.1% ± 36.0%) than traditional SCS (46.0% ± 40.4%, P < .001 for non-inferiority and P = .002 for superiority). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates long-term superiority of HF10 therapy compared with traditional SCS in treating both back and leg pain. The advantages of HF10 therapy are anticipated to impact the management of chronic pain patients substantially. ABBREVIATIONS: IPG, implantable pulse generatorMCID, minimal clinically important differencePI, permanent implantODI, Oswestry Disability IndexSCS, spinal cord stimulationVAS, Visual Analog Scale.

Novel 10-kHz High-frequency Therapy (HF10 Therapy) Is Superior to Traditional Low-frequency Spinal Cord Stimulation for the Treatment of Chronic Back and Leg Pain: The SENZA-RCT Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Current treatments for chronic pain have limited effectiveness and commonly known side effects. Given the prevalence and burden of intractable pain, additional therapeutic approaches are desired. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) delivered at 10 kHz (as in HF10 therapy) may provide pain relief without the paresthesias typical of traditional low-frequency SCS. The objective of this randomized, parallel-arm, noninferiority study was to compare long-term safety and efficacy of SCS therapies in patients with back and leg pain. METHODS: A total of 198 subjects with both back and leg pain were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to a treatment group across 10 comprehensive pain treatment centers. Of these, 171 passed a temporary trial and were implanted with an SCS system. Responders (the primary outcome) were defined as having 50% or greater back pain reduction with no stimulation-related neurological deficit. RESULTS: At 3 months, 84.5% of implanted HF10 therapy subjects were responders for back pain and 83.1% for leg pain, and 43.8% of traditional SCS subjects were responders for back pain and 55.5% for leg pain (P < 0.001 for both back and leg pain comparisons). The relative ratio for responders was 1.9 (95% CI, 1.4 to 2.5) for back pain and 1.5 (95% CI, 1.2 to 1.9) for leg pain. The superiority of HF10 therapy over traditional SCS for leg and back pain was sustained through 12 months (P < 0.001). HF10 therapy subjects did not experience paresthesias. CONCLUSION: HF10 therapy promises to substantially impact the management of back and leg pain with broad applicability to patients, physicians, and payers.

Determination of the particulate size and aggregation of clonidine and corticosteroids for epidural steroid injection.

BACKGROUND: Epidural injection of corticosteroids is a commonly used treatment for radicular pain. However, the benefits are often short lived, and repeated injections are often limited secondary to concerns of side effects from cumulative steroid doses. In addition, rare, catastrophic complications, including brain and spinal cord embolic infarcts have been attributed to particulate steroid injections. A previous study has shown that dexamethasone has less particulate than other corticosteroids, possibly reducing embolic risk. Furthermore, a recent study indicated that clonidine may be useful in the treatment of radicular pain when administered via epidural steroid injection. The combination of corticosteroid and clonidine is an intriguing, yet unstudied, alternative to traditional treatment. OBJECTIVE: Our study examines whether mixing clonidine and various corticosteroids results in increased particle size or aggregation. METHODS: Evaluations under light microscopy for particle size were made of samples of clonidine alone and clonidine mixed with equal parts of 3 corticosteroids solutions: dexamethasone sodium phosphate injection, triamcinolone acetonide injectable suspension, and betamethasone sodium phosphate and betamethasone acetate injectable suspension. Four mL each of clonidine (100 µcg/mL), clonidine (100 µcg/mL) + dexamethasone sodium phosphate injection (4 mg/mL), clonidine (100 µcg/mL) + triamcinolone acetonide injectable suspension (40 mg/mL), and clonidine (100 µcg/mL) + betamethasone sodium phosphate and betamethasone acetate injectable suspension (6 mg/mL) were examined Their particle sizes were compared to measurements taken when each steroid solution was examined alone. RESULTS: Clonidine was determined to be nonparticulate when examined by light microscopy. Clonidine mixed with equal parts of each of the 3 corticosteroids mentioned above did not result in increased clumping or increased particle size over each of the corticosteroids measured alone. CONCLUSION: Mixing clonidine with corticosteroids did not increase particulation compared to corticosteroids alone. Combining clonidine and corticosteroids for epidural injection may prove to be a useful treatment for radicular pain. The combination of these is unlikely to result in a solution that is more likely to cause embolic infarcts than the use of corticosteroids alone.

Subcutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation with inter-lead stimulation for axial neck and low back pain: case series and review of the literature.

OBJECTIVES: While pain in the extremities often responds to treatment using spinal cord stimulation (SCS), axial pain is notoriously refractory to SCS. Interest in subcutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation (SQ PNS) as an alternative to SCS has emerged, but the most appropriate electrode locations and neurostimulator programming techniques are not yet clear. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of consecutive patients evaluated from August 2009 to December 2010 who had undergone trial of SQ PNS with inter-lead stimulation for axial spine pain. Patients proceeding to implant were followed postoperatively with routine clinical visits and a survey form at last follow-up. Ultrasound was used intraoperatively to ensure placement of electrodes at the appropriate depth in patients with larger body mass index. Primary outcome was patient-reported pain relief at last follow-up. Literature review was conducted by searching MEDLINE (1948-present) and through an unstructured review by the authors. RESULTS: Ten patients underwent trial of SQ PNS and six proceeded to permanent implantation. Fifty percent (3/6) of implanted patients preferred neurostimulation programming that included inter-lead stimulation ("cross-talk"). Average duration of postoperative follow-up was 4.5 months (range 2-9 months). Average patient-reported pain relief at last follow-up was 45% (range 20-80%). One patient required re-operation for migration. Patients not proceeding to implant had paresthesia coverage but no analgesia. CONCLUSION: SQ PNS is a promising therapy for axial neck and back pain based on a small cohort of patients. Ultrasound was useful to assist with electrode placement at the most appropriate depth beneath the skin. While inter-lead stimulation has been preferred by patients in published reports, we did not find it clearly influenced pain relief. Future investigations should include a randomized, controlled study design, as well as defined implantation technique and neurostimulator programming algorithms.

Ultrasound-guided permanent implantation of peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) system for neuropathic pain of the extremities: original cases and outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Our objective is to describe our experience applying a minimally invasive, ultrasound-assisted technique for peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) trial and permanent implantation in patients with neuropathic extremity pain. DESIGN: Retrospective case series and review of the literature. Setting. Tertiary referral center and academic medical center. PATIENTS: Patients with upper or lower extremity neuropathic pain resistant to other therapies who responded to an ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve block at a proximal location. Interventions. Ultrasound-assisted through-the-needle placement of percutaneous neurostimulation electrodes on target major peripheral nerves for fully percutaneous trial, staged trial or permanent implantation of PNS system. A PNS trial period of 3-7 days was used. OUTCOME MEASURES: Pain relief at last follow-up, complications, therapeutic limitations due to technique as applied. Results. Six of eight (75%) patients and 7/9 (78%) peripheral nerves had a successful trial and underwent permanent PNS system implantation using a minimally invasive, ultrasound-assisted technique from November 2007 to December 2008. All but one patient with an implanted PNS system had > or =50% pain relief at last follow-up and 3/7 (43%) permanent systems were associated with > or =80% relief. Loss of paresthesia required revision to dual-lead systems in upper extremity radial nerve PNS. Infection led to explant in one case. CONCLUSIONS: In a small series of patients, a minimally invasive, ultrasound-assisted technique for PNS trial, and permanent PNS implantation proved feasible. Patients without adequate analgesia during neurostimulation trial avoided surgical incision and those undergoing permanent implantation were not subjected to the potential morbidity associated with nerve dissection.